HereComesTheReignAgain Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 You say my argument is "beyond stupid" yet you don't say why, or offer any counter-point. I realize from your previous post that I am arguing with someone who thinks the police acted properly (God help us all) but that's not an argument ... Less name-calling and a counter-point, please. For now, I am assuming you're calling my statement "beyond stupid" simply because it doesn't agree with your point of view. You stated: "I am partially deaf. And I find it very hard to tell what someone is saying if I can't see their lips while they're speaking. The way things are now, a cop standing behind me could say "Freeze. Hands up, now." When I did not comply in .0000045 seconds, he can then shoot me 167 times and ... get off? I think not. Oh, don't take that the wrong way... He probably WOULD get off." You are beyond stupid if you think a cop will walk up behind you in a non-threatening situation and shoot you in the back because you didn't hear him say stop. You then go on to claim that he would be exonerated. Now if you are fighting at a known drug and prostitution house, tell your friend to go get your gun, drive your car at a cop and don't hear him say stop, he will rightfully shoot you and be exonerated.
Chilly Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Currently being a fed (who some would say are not cops????) but having also been a uniformed police officer, trained to shoot until the threat stops. I think NYPD is still carrying 9mm (which is a crap round) so 50 rounds is not that many when your trying to hit a person concealed behind a metal door, windows, headrests, etc, etc. I can easily see how 50 rounds could get fired off in this situation. I am glad the cops were exhonerated. I hope the federal government doesn't try to step in to make the grooms family feel better. Just curious, how many of you have seen the full criminal histories for all the people in the vehicle? Heard from a friend that between them there were over 50 arrests for drug related crimes including possession of a handgun, and assaulting PO's. Until you have put on the badge, body armor, belt, and gun, kissed your wife and children goodbye and went out on the streets as a cop where at times you didn't think you were going home at the end of your shift (YOU ALMOST GOT KILLED!!!) then please don't try to explain how the police officers in this case overstepped their authority, did the wrong thing, or used poor judgement. If your experience with firearms is limited to time on the range where you shoot cans, you have no experience. The bad guy knows what he is going to do, I have a fraction of a second to react to his actions, and sometimes I have to and will kill them to ensure I go home at the end of the tour. Some of you guys make me sick. The irony is that the ones complaining about the police are the same ones calling 911 at all hours of the day and night and then complaining about everything. Everything I know about this situation makes me think the cops were indeed justified, but the idea that the public shouldn't look at the cops in this situation (who are paid by their tax dollars and charged to protect them) with scrutiny unless they've been a cop themselves is wrong. Should people not do the same to politicians, judges, sports players, etc? A much better argument is AD's, which is to not look judgmentally at it without all of the information involved.
BB27 Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Everything I know about this situation makes me think the cops were indeed justified, but the idea that the public shouldn't look at the cops in this situation (who are paid by their tax dollars and charged to protect them) with scrutiny unless they've been a cop themselves is wrong. Should people not do the same to politicians, judges, sports players, etc? A much better argument is AD's, which is to not look judgmentally at it without all of the information involved. I think you missed my point. I have no problem about people reviewing an incident or situation. My problem is with people who insist the police are always wrong even after a court of law has determined that they were not. I was also trying to say don't point the finger until you have walked in their (our) shoes for a bit.
bills_fan Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 I think you missed my point. I have no problem about people reviewing an incident or situation. My problem is with people who insist the police are always wrong even after a court of law has determined that they were not. I was also trying to say don't point the finger until you have walked in their (our) shoes for a bit. They should never have been charged, as I said in my first post. Reading about the testimony every day in the paper, it was pretty clear that tehre was no crime committed here. DA bowed to political pressure to charge and should pay the price in the next election (of course he won't). Some similarities here with the Duke case and DA's bringing cases they should not simply due to political pressure. In the meantime, three officer or students have to go through the ordeal. Pretty shameful if you ask me.
Recommended Posts